You will never be in the driver's seat unless you are willing to grab the wheel and steer it yourself.

I

39875625_10156597511187387_5979087529687646208_o.jpg

II

66d35c961ddea75c891d8dbd57a49940--rip-hunter-blue-beetle.jpg

III

When I was a kid, I loved that ride, but only on one condition.

I got to sit up in front steering the bus.

Alone.

The bigger and older boys all hogged that seat until I strutted up, grabbed them, and threw them out, and got in there myself.

Boys more than twice my age and size would literally go flying out, while I daintily got in, grabbed the wheel, and giggled.

My mother was mortified, but my grandfather cheered me on, telling all the offended moms of flung out boys that it was his granddaughter who owned those boys’ backsides.

And he didn’t exactly speak English. He knew enough to tell them that — and negotiate and barter at any store, driving down the price.

My grandfather taught me many valuable lessons, and one of them was that if you want to be in the driver’s seat, you better be willing for some rough and tumble, but be sure to grab the steering wheel.

That involves strategy and risk.

But also a plan.

If you are not focussed on your goal, and if you do not believe in yourself, you will always choke and never grab the wheel.

Forget the brass ring.

Get the wheel and drive to your goal.

And when you control the wheel, you have full say in the direction that you are going.

You keep your promise to yourself and you travel up news paths, and straight into the eye of the storm.

No guts, no glory.

You do not nag other people who have control of the wheel of your ride.

You have a lot of women who don’t grasp this Truth.

a09b85e0a9383cf473e63bc6ffc2794e.jpg

Here is an idea: put down the sign.

It will not get you anywhere.

And if you have held placards for decades, you are doing something wrong.

That is not a steering wheel.

You are nagging the driver.

Stop nagging the driver.

The one who has the wheel drives. The end.

When I was a kid, I did not ask for permission. I did not ask for approval. I did not seek validation for my choice. Mom would have said no, that’s rude.

And I would have never gotten to be the seat that made me the happiest as everyone else did.

All the boys who had age and height and girth over me.

She was not happy with my choice. I was tickled pink.

But she didn’t punish me. She took me there repeatedly and she took pictures.

Because she knew who I was as a human being.

20190209_210112.jpg

I had every right to that place because I fought for it based on my own instincts.

I didn’t hold a placard whining that the big boys were hogging that seat for themselves.

That’s what feminism has fallen to in 2019.

Because middle class women lost their instincts and thought a woman who ran for president was feminist.

Hillary Clinton was never a feminist.

Opportunist, yes. Ambitious, yes.

But not feminist.

She never corrected her past errors. She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory — in essence, her campaign made it amply clear that she had to focus of destination, and hence, could not actually grab the steering wheel when it counted the most because she build her house of cards on a lie.

She hesitated.

And then, made up the worst excuses in the history of presidential races: she blamed Russia (external) and James Comey (internal).

As if those two things would not be daily problems for any president.

If you cannot manage the external and internal, you don’t deserve the steering wheel at all.

But what she did was set back feminism and greatly discredited the US left version of it because women bought into her propaganda about the Russians being responsible for her defeat.

Okay, if the Russians could take her out that easily, then what do you imagine her abilities to be if she were president and twenty countries go after the country?

She can’t handle one, according to her convoluted bullshit narrative.

It wasn’t just journalists who banked on Robert Mueller finding collusion. It wasn’t just Democrats who have no actual original ideas or policy except for spending borrowed money.

It was US feminists who bought the lie.

And now they are left with a stunning defeat.

You wasted all of this time and resources nagging and holding placards instead of steering wheels, and you have scribbled paper to show for your efforts.

No amount of offended posturing and chest-thumping is going to alter that reality.

Because nobody with a brain is going to give one flying fuck to your excuses and denials.

You backed a turkey. Her bullshit story cost you goodwill and credibility. The end.

Donald Trump won because he flung out Clinton from that front seat.

He earned it. He jumped into the eye of the storm and he won fair and square.

The moment he announced his candidacy, I knew he would win and Clinton would lose.

I know determination when I see it.

If women want change, they have to change themselves.

They have to change.

They have to confront truths and reality that do not involved any self-serving patriarchal Mary Sue bullshit narrative.

Don’t tell me how you hold paper with scribbles on it. Show me how you handle your ride.

If any American understands the Hero’s Journey and its every nuance, it is Donald J. Trump. I would never begrudge him that. He is not crazy. He is not evil. He is self-indulgent. He is a brilliant strategist. He lives life to the fullest.

I do not ascribe to his politics.

He never asks permission to live his life. Women should study him and learn what it means to drive.

You could also ask me.

I have been doing that since I was a kid.

It was child’s play.

It is still child’s play to me.

And unless your hands are holding a steering wheel, you have zero say in where you are going or when…

Federal Liberals opt for the Hillary Clinton Political Strategy: let the silliosity begin!

There is a by-election in Burnaby South right now that is getting the kind of attention you don’t want. At first, Jagmeet Singh was stepping in dog shit for not knowing some crucial details of the slap fight between China and Canada, but the By-Election Fairy decided to change the narrative and it was his Liberal Opponent Karen Wang who took a step into a mountain of manure by playing the race card.

She resigned, changed her mind, but the Grits said no…and then pretended this was all part of the master plan because they want Singh to win.

Not even Maclean's magazine is buying that bullshit story:

Wang having set a dumpster fire incinerating the Liberal brand, it seems Liberal operatives did the obvious thing: claim the whole episode had worked out exactly as hoped. One CTV politics host even reported that Liberal strategists were “overjoyed” with their Burnaby South candidate inferno. A National Post columnist asked whether it was “the plan all along to throw the fight?”

While obviously the Liberals want to project confidence that Singh isn’t a real threat with the spin that they are happy to see him elected, that logic implies that somewhere in the Liberal campaign manual is a line of instructions: douse Liberal brand in accelerant, ignite, win. I don’t think so.

Considering the cost of running a campaign, you do not “throw” elections. You just don’t run a candidate, and risk them suing you for getting them in debt just to sabotage them and humiliate them in public by having no intention of being serious and respectful. Are non-white candidates just cannon fodder and expendable pawns to be disposed? That’s just batshit crazy and the best evidence that the electorate would be wise by never voting for you ever again.

If you want Singh to win, don’t enter the race. You draw less attention to it. The seat is going to be up for grabs anyway come the next federal election.

The Liberal Party has been nothing but racist and disrespectful to Singh. He can win without Grit political social workers helping him along.

But the Grit bigotry and sexism can hold for another discussion on another day.

It is that their strategy is starting to emerge. They have found Hillary Clinton’s old playbook, and are cribbing from it.

The one where every blunder is to be explained away in public as being part of the “master plan.”

Contrary to the conspiracy theories of the Left, Clinton lost because three states that normally sway Left went Right — three states where she barely campaigned, if at all, taking them for granted. Trump campaigned there and won.

Then came the excuse that, yes, her camp knew, but they didn’t want to seem as if they thought Trump was an actual threat by going there to campaign, which is your job as a national candidate: you don’t go or not go because of a rival.

That’s irrelevant.

You go because you are reaching out and making direct face time with potential voters. It was a gross tactical error that proved that Clinton’s ego overrode any consideration about the people who she wanted to lord over.

When you run in an election, you do not take sides, play favourites, run because of yourself, someone else’s ideology, or to validate your demented ego or thinking.

You run for the people!

That is the only right answer a politician can give. Trump said it enough times. Doug Ford made it a campaign slogan.

And notice it is not for some of the people, people who kiss my ass, rich people, limousine liberal people, white people, Fox News-watching people, or any kind of line-in-the-sand kind of people.

It is just people. People love to divide themselves based on area code, but the bottom line is that after an election, the people have spoken, and now give the winner the mandate.

You lost because you did not resonate with enough people. You ignored too many people. You focussed on just one group of people while ignoring another group of people.

And no, they were not wrong in rejecting you. You made a request, and it was rejected.

Do not go back and try to spin failure with sophistry and then argue that you are superior to the victor. You are not. You failed.

Own it.

Because if the Grits vetted the candidate and accepted her, they were wrong. She isn’t cut out to run for office. She may be talented with other things, but not politics.

But if we are to believe this was part of some strategy, it is a far worse offence to the point that this regime is grossly frivolous, manipulative, and incompetent. If wanted to be a candidate, and I was told I was qualified, but then spun as some disposable decoy, then what?

Who’d want to run for a party like that?

Who’s Justin Trudeau? The Joker? And the candidates are the henchmen?

crasd8n9rlhx.jpg

Really?

And as for the narrative that a Singh victory would be a great thing for the Grits, that’s a pretty brazen act of racism.

But Clinton also cheered Trump’s candidacy thinking the same thing.

Doug Ford also proved that to underestimate an opponent is the best way of ensuring your defeat.

The Left’s neo-Victorian strategy is trying to vote-shame people. It doesn’t work. The Left don’t actually believe their ideology, either, considering their acts of othering and full-on prejudice trip them up at every turn. The Grits wouldn’t even allow the first PM to self-label as “feminist” be a woman, let alone a woman of colour. That was given to the privileged rich white boy with the famous daddy.

So let’s not pretend.

Clinton lost because the Left keep doing the same thing.

If you made a mistake, own up to it.

In the Burnaby South case, they have now made Singh’s ignorance of current events utterly forgettable.

Because what the Grits are doing is far more troubling in comparison.

That Singh didn’t know about the latest gossip on an international spat Canada’s involved in?

Big whoop: who can keep a scorecard these days? Every single day, the federal regime manages to piss off another nation.

But thinking you can fool all of the people all of the time as you throw candidates you didn’t vet properly under the bus? That’s disturbing.

We have a government that is groping in the dark, using losing playbooks, and don’t see what the problem is.

And that’s something to be seriously concerned about…

Rich, Establishment Democrats issue decrees to the little people to fight their battles for them.

Perennial grudge-holder Hillary Clinton inciting the little people to be uncivilized, something her and her equally boorish husband are experts in.

Another well-heeled Establishment Democrat Eric Holder is walking lockstep with that narrative, also telling said little people to “kick low”, as if the Democrats aren’t doing it already with their propaganda memes and Machiavellian fear-mongering to incite people to fight their wars.

That’s right, little middle class people, go fight some wealthy Establishment-types wars for them: get arrested, blacklisted, imprisoned, and even killed so those fat cats can waddle back into power at your expense.

Notice how they keep their manicured hands clean.

Western civilization is highly uncivilized to begin with, and no wonder: you have people in power babble and spew, behaving as if they are owed positions of power. Delusions of grandeur enabled by a yokel press and an unworldly flock.

The sour grapes pouting on the Left has got to stop before they lose their credibility in the bargain. Inciting a pampered middle class demographic is not going to work because that group are hoping some group called They will do the heavy lifting for them.

The Left are becoming increasingly unhinged because Donald Trump has their number, and is cranking calling them to their perpetual humiliation. Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien is trying his best to spin a narrative that isn’t true:

Chrétien says Americans made 'a monumental error' when they elected Donald Trump

'People don't take them seriously anymore,' the former prime minister tells CBC News

Oh, they take him more than seriously: other world leaders are afraid of him, and for good reason. He is a far superior strategist than the sleepwalkers who coasted on pandering to the sheltered middle class who make pouty faces at homelessness, crime, and anything icky. They got off on the bored housewife/husband dreck of happy, feel-good cheerleading where everyone gets a gold star and no one loses.

Then came Trump and stomped on their false paradise, and they are incapable of fighting back.

They are not street fighters or strategists. They are vain sycophants and weasels who bribe the electorate with suburban goodies. This has been the crib notes for the Left, and now they are paying the price, trying to put a Bad Guy spin on poor and blue collar people by labelling them “populist” (read: fascist).

The Left have insulated themselves from different perspectives and now their tunnel vision isn’t allowing them to see the landscape where Trump owns their collective backside. These were the nerdy children who fantasized about getting vindication and eternally punishing those who didn’t applaud them, and that fantasy world is killing the Left.

The problem is their corrupt mindset has infected their operative institutions across the board: journalism, entertainment, and academia are all equally dense.

They, for instance, do not understand how they lost the Kavanaugh row. One Canadian professor thought she had a clue:

Democrats, on the other hand, attempted to combine the momentum of the #MeToo movement with distrust by progressives of Kavanaugh’s position on reproductive rights to generate enough rage to convince moderate Republican senators like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to vote against their party. 

She goes back to it a little bit later::

The attempt to prevent Kavanaugh’s nomination failed because Democrats bet on the energy of #MeToo to supplement the power they actually held in the hope that they could destabilize the Republican Senate majority. This was a foolish wager.

The #MeToo movement is not a political movement. As a slogan and rallying cry it has galvanized an incredible amount of energy, affect — and profit — around enumerable policy projects, many of which are internally inconsistent. Furthermore, it is not clear that many of these policies are progressive or liberal in any discernible sense.

The Democrats did something far more conniving than that: they hijacked #MeToo, and then re-invented it to suited their own narrative. They delegated women into the role of damsel in distress, who were victims of a dastardly villain.

giphy.gif

And with that single move, the Democrats proved they weren’t for feminism or progressive values. They just use it as a threat to keep their flock in check.

The trauma of November 2016 on the Left should not be underestimated: it cause them to be frozen in a spiteful vortex. The soft and sheltered ways of their pampered Establishment were rudely intruded on by reality, and their sophistry led them astray.

They have not come to grips with the reasons they lost: they were intellectually weak and predictable, and Trump was chaotic, innovative, ingenious, and a strategist who pulled the veil on their hidden weaknesses that they still believe they can explain away.

That is the reason journalism collapsed in North America. They don’t get that they are to blame for their own demise. Academia are still insulated and keep spewing the same sophistry that did in journalism. The politicians on the Left have no new original ideas and are now getting their sorry backsides whipped by Trump who won because he was an outsider who brought a fresh perspective into the equation.

For feminists, their interests are not being served by the Left, and it is high time women created a new political party: they will get trounced on in the beginning, but they need to be trounced on so that they become awakened to the reality of the battlefield. If you don’t want to keep losing, then you had better let go of your fairy princess narratives and face reality in order to understand the truth.

That is what journalism needed to do, but didn’t, and now they are reduced to being dead clowns who allowed rich people to incite the masses for their own self-entitled ends.

Nothing is working for the Left and had they dropped the vindictive temper tantrums and started modifying their own views and behaviours, they would have bounced back from losing a single election months ago.

They chose to be stubborn, thinking their stupidity was important to keep because their pride wouldn’t let them see the truth. Clinton lost because she wasn’t capable of winning, and someone should tell her to get off the stage before the crowds get wise to her schemes…

Kathleen Wynne's brilliant gambit.

Kathleen Wynne has a brain and she has guts. Unlike the cowardly and oblivious Hillary Clinton who had no concession speech, Wynne chases out in front.

Proving she is both a realist and strategist, Wynne took control of the situation and did something the Big Boys do not have the ovaries to do: concede defeat before the end of the election.

It was a daring gambit, and it proved that Wynne isn't in it for her: she warned Ontarians not to make a knee-jerk reaction and give a majority to the weak contenders.

It takes a realist to be able to face that kind of truth in public -- and then strategically try to save the party by doing something no one has ever done before. It is something to admire and something a lot of people would be wise to study. It is very easy to be out there when everything goes your way; it is another thing when everything is working against you.

But this isn't good news for Ontario -- a province that does not have its house in order and the new minders are unprepared for what is coming ahead. Andrea Horwath has no vision, let alone that aligns with the shifting landscape: she parrots a script. Doug Ford has cunning, but he lacks gravitas. Neither one is actual leader material -- and now that Ontario is in a precarious situation, whoever wins the contest will rue the day it happened. A dark storm is coming and Ontario is completely unprepared. This has always been a timid province that plays it safe, and when unpredictable storms come raging in, those old tricks will make things worse.

Wynne's defeat is a blessing for her: she is dodging a bullet. It must be absolutely devastating for her: she had vision and the courage to push through with it, but she took it as far as she could with an electorate who have no idea what is in store for them. Her legacy will be dismantled, but she was always a good soldier, and her talents were wasted in that position, anyway.

Another winner by losing is Patrick Brown. He may be throwing epic fits, but he, too dodged a bullet by getting the boot before the election.

Wynne is a maverick -- and to be a female maverick is a difficult path to take. White boys cannot stand the fact that they do not have the monopoly on being rebels with a plan. Other women who stick to scripts are insanely jealous that there can be a woman who can be free to be a visionary.

Wynne broke barriers, but she would have always been better suited in the federal sphere. Provincial politics isn't the place for vision. It is middle management territory where the point is to fly under the radar, and follow a script that both the bosses and the underlings can accept without feeling intimidated. That's not Wynne.

With today's gambit, she keeps herself active in the game. She comes off as a genuine realist, and not a prima donna as other politicians have proven themselves to be. She needs a better outlet for her unorthodox brand of balancing various factions while shaking people out of their slumber.

I am not one of her detractors, nor am I intimidated by her. I may not agree with her ideas, but Canada needs people like her to cross lines in the sand because this has been a nation that seems to draw them thinking nothing bad happens when you make them...

The Hillary Clinton Syndrome: fighting for the wrong kind of votes can be hazardous to your ambitions.

As journalists have their mandated meltdown that Doug Ford won a very simple game, and became the new Ontario PC leader despite a well-crafted narrative that was supposed to put a woman in that position, it is time to look at two of those women to see how is it possible for a female candidate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Christine Elliott was channelling Hillary Clinton in so many ways that it was truly breath-taking. She was not the gracious loser, taking a long time to concede defeat. She has more votes, but as I have repeatedly said, campaigns are not about getting more votes, but strategic ones. It is a game of skill and tricks, many of which are dirty. It is campaign warfare in the truest sense of the word.

But in 2018, just like 2016, there is some mistaken notion that you have to (a) be "inclusive", and (b) be non-offensive. As Donald Trump proved, those are the first two steps to defeat.

You are not supposed to be all things to all of the people. You have to pick a few demographics and psychographics, push the right buttons, and get enough of them to vote. You do not need a majority. How many times do we have to have elections before the public comprehend it is not about a majority. It doesn't matter if it took place 1984 or 2016 or 1900 -- you do not win campaigns courting a majority.

It doesn't matter what the general consensus is -- what matters is what the primary targeted blocs that vote come Election Day, and often, those groups deliberately hold their cards close to their chests.

There are ways to get voters, and ways to repel them away from marking your name on the ballot. Men such as Ford and Trump understand enough to say "I am running for the public/common voter" and "I will bring change" that implies the change will benefit the targeted groups for the better because under the current regime, they are being ignored.

For all the prattle that Trump and Barak Obama are nothing alike, they campaigned using that same winning strategy -- the only difference was who were the target groups. Trump went to the Right. Obama went to the Left. Same structure, but different content of message.

But journalists have a true blindness when it comes to seeing structure. They only see content.

To them, they think Obama and Trump are different. If they looked at structure of thought, they'd realize they are the same.

Ford won because his structure of campaign aligns with what successful candidates do: have you-focussed messages that promise a positive reward for the vote. Target certain groups, and they will hedge their bets on you. You focus without being all over the place, saving your enemies for other tactics.

Elliott had a me-focussed message -- she ran twice before, and thus, it was, "her turn" to lead. The backdrop of #MeToo implied it was the natural conclusion to have a woman in charge.

Clinton's defeat was a factor in creating a fertile ground for #MeToo, but her message was equally me-focussed -- it was her turn to lead because it was a "woman's" turn to run. That doesn't explain to voters what is in it for them to vote for her. That, coupled with the unfocussed bid to get as many voters as possible, meant she set herself up to lose.

A candidate needs more than just confidence in being able to do the job: you must have the confidence in your own targeted groups to give you their goodwill. If you know a good percentage of Group A will have your back because you made it clear you'll have theirs, you don't do desperate things and overwork your campaign.

This isn't to say the entire campaign is above board -- you'll have private investigators going through rivals' garbage for dirt. You'll have people play dirty tricks to keep certain votes away -- but any of that can backfire.

You also cannot worry about offending people outside your targeted groups because you cannot please all of the people all of the time. In fact, upsetting one faction turns you into irresistible forbidden fruit that your group will vote for just to stick it to the rival faction. For Anti-Establishment candidates, they absolutely have to be ready to thumb their nose at sanctioned beliefs. It's why activist groups are often unwitting pawns in campaigns -- the second they howl, they send a signal to the offending candidates' potential voters that their person is brave enough to stand up to those lines drawn in the sand.

Clinton played it safe, and she paid the price. Elliott took from Clinton's playbook and suffered the same fate.

Caroline Mulroney's case of the Clinton Syndrome was more subtle, but her problem was that she also lacked a you-focussed message. She was a legacy candidate, which gave her an initial edge, and she would have been a natural choice in the light of #MeToo, but when asked why she was running, she didn't have the answer. She also couldn't handle softball questions about her children being in private school -- all she had to say was she wasn't happy with the current public system -- but if she was elected, she'd make sure education improved for everyone...

Or something along the lines. It wasn't as if she was getting tough questions, but she came off as someone who didn't think she had to answer to anyone, and when you are running to be in charge of other people's money and hold their fate in your hands, you need to be somewhat accessible. Clinton had the same problems, and it was what always made her a problematic candidate.

But with Clinton, she became senator right after her husband's presidency, when she was  seen as forging her own way right after her husband's infidelity nearly got him impeached. There were other reasons why she was voted in back then -- but that kind of support was time sensitive. By the time she ran for president, she got no lift in support by it because by then, it was a different ballgame.

Men like Ford and Trump get it. They use playbooks that brought others victory. Elliott and Mulroney didn't, and it cost them both the paper crown.

As for the provincial election, Kathleen Wynne is also someone who gets it -- she is a polarizing figure. She is disliked by the majority.

And yet she knows how to connect to the right coalition of groups with strategic promises to get herself elected. She is focussed, understands you-centred messages, and is not afraid to offend a majority. She knows how to tussle with the big boys, and it is one of the reasons she earns her victories.

Very rarely do you see two candidates vying for the same coveted position who are equally structurally savvy in that regard. You either have a candidate who was in power for so long that they think they don't have to fight like a newcomer -- or a candidate who sees an incumbent is disliked, and then thinks they will win by default. This is first major election that I can remember where the candidates are truly equally matched in every way.

Some people think that may give NDP's Andrea Horwath the same kind of default victory Bob Rae got and then fumbled, but it is not a foregone conclusion that Ford and Wynne will cancel each other out. Ford can easily turn an Orange Hamilton area Blue, for instance. Wynne can also pull a rabbit out of her hat. She is not suffering from the Clinton Syndrome, and she is someone who can get results even when the odds look bleak. Anyone who looks at her polling numbers is missing the big picture.

Who ultimately wins depends on which targeted groups get the most inspired to go out an vote, and this is a rare case where both Wynne and Ford can raid the NDP's seats to eke out a victory.

Hamilton and Toronto are going to be big battlegrounds. Ford and Wynne both have strong support in Hogtown. Neither is well-liked as a general consensus -- but are both beloved by very loyal core groups of voting blocks.

While the leadership race was a replay of the Trump-Clinton match, the election is anything but, and it will make a very good comparison to see whose you-focussed message will be most effective this time around.